Examination of Witnesses (Questions 315-319)
RT HON
LORD GOLDSMITH
QC
27 JUNE 2007
Q315 Chairman: Mr Attorney, welcome to
this Committee. We will not be able to call you that again and,
indeed, you will be leaving the Attorney's chambers for the last
time shortly.
Lord Goldsmith: Yes.
Q316 Chairman: After, not a world tour,
but an evidence-giving tour of committees and, indeed, radio programmes.
We have some things we would like to ask you. I wonder if you
could start by telling us how in practice you exercise superintendence
of the prosecution services and to what extent it is by formal
guidance, frequent contact with heads of services, that sort of
thing.
Lord Goldsmith: Certainly. It
depends on what aspect. Can I distinguish policy, organisation,
priorities, resources and then individual decisions? So far as
the former are concerned, I have been actively engaged with each
of the prosecuting authorities. We will discuss general policy,
for example the organisation of the service, the relations with
the police, particular decisions. For example the new powers which
over the years that I have been in office the CPS have got have
obviously been the subject of detailed discussion. If they have
a policy on tackling domestic violence, they will come and consult
on that and we will discuss it, or, in relation to issues of law,
if there is a question of change in the law on rape, for example,
then I would discuss that with the CPS. So there are a lot of
issues, and that would be conducted in a number of different ways.
There would be briefings from the CPS that would go through my
policy department and director of policy. I would discuss this
with the heads of the CPS or the other prosecuting authorities'
policy departments, I would meet with them, I would have advice
from my officials on those issues and I would meet regularly with
the Chief Executive and the Director of Public Prosecutions for
the CPS, with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, with the
Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office for that,
and I would also meet with the heads of the prosecuting departments
from other government departments. So, that is quite a substantial
part of the activity. So far as individual decisions are concerned,
all the prosecutors would expect to keep me informed and to consult
me on major or very sensitive cases, and they would do that generally
by sending regularly what is called a "sensitive case list",
which they would keep for their own purposes too, of those cases
which may be sensitive for some reason—that may be perhaps
because it has attracted interest in the newspapers, it is a difficult
case, it involves particular individuals. I would see those, my
lawyers would provide briefing on them and I may have some comments
or I may ask questions like, "What is going to happen next?",
and then occasionally there will be cases where I would have meetings
with the Director or the relevant official from the department
and discuss those cases. What would happen then is that they would
say, "We are minded to take this decision". I give an
example which is fairly obvious. When the CPS decided that they
were going to prosecute the Metropolitan Police under section
three of the Health and Safety Act over the death of Mr Jean Charles
de Menezes but not prosecute in relation to individual officers,
they brought to me the advice that they had received from counsel,
the draft review note that they had from individuals and I would
look at that. Sometimes I would raise questions and say, "What
about this? What about that? Can you get some further information.
I am a bit uncomfortable about this aspect or that aspect",
and a discussion would take place, but it would usually be in
the form of my asking questions, I hope sometimes probing questions,
as to whether they had got the right decision, because I know
that the likelihood is that on decisions like that I may have
to stand at the despatch box, or Mike O'Brien will have to stand
at the despatch box, and explain to the House of Commons and the
House of Lords, "Did you consider this point or that point?
What did you think? Did you think it was right not to prosecute
the individuals, for example, for manslaughter or for something
else". So we need to be comfortable in relation to that.
I hope that is a general answer to that.
Q317 Julie Morgan: Does the superintendent
of the prosecution services need to be both a lawyer and a politician?
Lord Goldsmith: Well, we have
had the debate before as to how far I regard myself as a politician.
I was brought up by the Chairman who said, "You are a Member
of Parliament", which I am, "and therefore you must
be".
Q318 Chairman: And you take the Government
Whip!
Lord Goldsmith: And I take the
Government Whip. I accept that entirely. I think that the superintendent
of the prosecuting authorities does require to be a lawyer with
experience and standing, because these are legal decisions that
are actually being taken when it comes to professional decisions.
I think it is also helpful when it even comes to the priority
and the resource and all that sort of issue, because the prosecuting
authorities will be saying, for example, "We would like to
change but we think we might change our policy in relation to
domestic violence, but there are these legal issues", or,
"We do not think it would be right to change the definition
of `consent'", or "It would be right to change the definition
of `consent' in relation to rape", and they would explain
it in legal terms. So, I think on the professional decisions,
individual decisions, it is absolutely essential that it is a
lawyer of seniority and experience who does that. I think it is
also right, as you know, that the person who superintends is the
person who is accountable to Parliament, and it therefore means
that that person should be, in my view, accountable to Parliament,
and that means being, in my view, a member of Parliament, one
or the other Houses, so that person can be summoned to the House
in order to answer questions, to stand in the despatch box and
to deal with any concerns that members have: because the Houses
represent the public for these purposes and if that means being
a member of the House, being a politician, then, yes, I think
it needs to be a politician in that sense. The only reason I quibble
is because, with respect, I am not a career politician, I never
have been. I entirely accept I have not been elected. In one sense
it is partly an attribute rather than a defect, I understand that,
but from my point of view, I have been a professional lawyer all
my life and that is the side of me which is absolutely dominant.
Q319 Chairman: You do seem to have
some hesitation about being a politician.
Lord Goldsmith: I am sorry, particularly
in this forum, for suggesting that. I think I do, for this reason,
because genuinely I do regard the lawyer side as being absolutely
dominant. I have said this before, I do not take part, in a sense,
in the regular political debate, I do not go on Question Time,
and I do not actually go round the country canvassing. I do not
have to for my own purpose and I do not really do it for anybody
else. I just keep myself, to some extent, distant from that, precisely
because I think that that is not the dominant side of what I do.
|
